Chennai Court August 1938 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sri Rajah Bommadevara Venkatarayulu Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Sr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad293; (1939)1MLJ120
Wadsworth, J.1. The appeal and the revision petition have been heard together because they both arise out of the same litigation, but the questions raised in them are really quite different.2. In the second appeal the only question is whether the lower Court was wrong in law in refusing to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. Quite clearly the lower Court was not wrong in its decision at all unless an application for copies filed on 10th August, 1932, can be regarded as an application not only for a copy of the judgment but also for a copy of the decree. The application in terms only asks for 'a copy of the order' and it was not until 3rd September, 1932, that, a memorandum was filed asking that the decree might be drafted and a copy of it might be granted. Now, if time had been running against the appellant until 3rd September, 1932, his appeal was time-barred. I am unable to say that the lower appellate Court committed any legal error in holding that the earlier application dated 1...
Kozhikote Patinhare Kovilakath Mahadevi Alias Kunhi Thamburatti Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ840
Madhavan Nair, Officiating C.J.1. The legal representative of the 1st plaintiff is the appellant. In this second appeal the question is raised as regards the court-fee that should have been paid by the appellant on the memorandum of appeal that he presented to the lower Court. As there is a conflict of authority on the question the case has been posted before us for decision at the instance of Lakshmana Rao, J., before whom the second appeal came originally for hearing.2. The facts are these : The plaintiffs sued for recovery of possession of properties from their tenants. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on condition that they should pay Rs. 8,000 for value of improvements. The plaintiffs appealed against the compensation amount that they were ordered to pay. According to them no compensation should have been decreed against them. They valued the appeal treating it as one for possession ignoring the fact that the subject-matter of the appeal was the value of improvements that the...
Commissioner, Municipal Council Vs. K.N. Damodara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ815
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The prosecution was for affixing cinema advertisements on vehicles and roadsides vested in the Municipal Council of Vellore without licence, for which no period is specified and under the proviso to Section 347 of the District Municipalities Act, the offence has to be deemed to be a continuing offence and the complaint may be made within twelve months from the commencement of the offence. The acquittal of the accused on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 347 of the Act which requires complaints in other cases to be filed within three months is therefore untenable and it cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside but the Municipal Council has its remedy in the Civil Court for the licence fee and a retrial is not called for....
Bonagiri Sreeramulu Vs. Karumuri Venkatanarasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad1004; (1938)2MLJ835
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur in Appeal No. 27 of 1936. The appellant was the second judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 247 of 1924 on the file of the District Munsiff of Narsapur. In that suit the first respondent in this appeal got a decree for money against a father and three sons. Before judgment on the 16th October, 1924, the joint family property belonging to the defendants in the suit had been attached. After the attachment a partition suit was filed by the sons against their father and the matter is also further complicated by the fact that after the attachment an insolvency petition was brought against the father and in that petition the father was adjudicated. The Official Receiver sold the father's one-fourth share in the joint family property and proposed to sell the shares of the three sons. The first respondent the decree-holder in O.S. No. 247 of 1924 objected to the sale of the three-fourths share belonging to the sons but his...
Aravamudhu Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Ramanuja Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad154; (1938)2MLJ982
Varadachariar, J.1. Plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed by the lower Court on certain preliminary grounds have filed this appeal. They sued for recovery of possession of certain lands and for mesne profits and also sought to set aside a decree which had been obtained against them and their father. They claimed to be entitled to possession of the suit properties on the ground that under Ex. A, their grandfather's will, they had become trustees for the charities to which these properties they said had been dedicated by the said will. They recognised that as per the terms of the will, their father, the first defendant would be the trustee during his lifetime and they would become trustees only after their father's death. They accordingly alleged in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint that the first defendant had altogether ceased to perform the trust, that he had alienated the suit properties as if they were his private properties, that he had in fact gone away to French territories and...
Tile Beharani and anr. Vs. Kevute Raghubehara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ340
1. On 1st April, 1936, the province of Orissa was constituted, and the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore has on and from that date, been a Court within the jurisdiction of that province. After that date the respondent who had obtained a decree against the predecessor-in title of the appellants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore at a time when the Court was within the Presidency of Madras and whose decree had been confirmed by the High Court of Madras filed an application to execute the decree, and filed it not in Berhampore but in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole. The appellants contended that he ought to have filed his application in Berhampore, and as the learned Subordinate Judge has overruled their contention they have now appealed to this Court.2. The law which has to be applied to these facts is found in Section 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is clear to us from a study of that section that(i) only one of the two Courts (Berhampore o...
Parimi Chakrapani Naidu Vs. Mattapalli Venkataraju (Deceased) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad958; (1938)2MLJ769
Wadsworth, J.1. The defendant in this case appeals against the decree for damages caused to the plaintiff's land by the loss of irrigation facilities, resulting from the action of the defendant in obstructing the legitimate construction of a temporary dam across an irrigation channel and in obtaining orders from the Courts which prevented the plaintiff from having the use of water to which he was entitled, pending Magisterial and Civil Courts' proceedings.2. There is no doubt about the facts. The obstruction was on 31st August, 1924. After interfering with the making of this dam, the defendant moved the Magistrate and procured an order under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, on 21st November, 1924, restraining the plaintiff from damming the channel and taking water to his land. The plaintiff consequently had to file a civil suit to establish his right and he also applied for a temporary injunction against the defendant to restrain him from interfering with the exercise of this righ...
In Re: K. Narasimha Bhattachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad657; (1938)2MLJ810
Madhavan Nair, Officiating C.J.1. The main question in this appeal is whether the suit has been properly instituted on behalf of the plaintiff Venkatanarasimha Bhattachari by his next friend, his wife. Her case as the next friend is that her husband is mentally deficient, is not able to look after his affairs and is incapable of protecting his interests. The relief asked for is the revocation of the power-of-attorney granted by him to the defendant. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that the next friend has no right to institute the suit, and that it should be dismissed. It was dismissed by the trial Judge on that ground, but this decision was set aside by Venkataramana Rao, J., who came to the conclusion on the evidence that the plaintiff was incapable of protecting his interests when suing or being sued.2. There is ample evidence on record in support of the learned Judge's conclusion. On a previous occasion this Court treated the plaintiff as one under disability within the mea...
Thirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanams Committee (Represented by Its Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ829
Wadsworth, J.1. These three appeals arise out of suits under the Madras Estates Land Act for rent on land which according to the common case of both parties is now occupied by houses, though it is alleged by the landholder (the plaintiff) to be ryoti land available for cultivation.2. Second Appeal No. 179 has to be allowed, for it is established that the respondent who was the appellant in the District Court, died on 10th June, 1935, that is to say, some two months before the appeal was heard by that Court and no legal representative was brought on record. The appeal therefore had abated at the time when the learned District Judge heard it and his judgment must be treated as void and the decree of the Deputy Collector has to be restored. I make no order as to costs in this Court.3. With reference to the other two second appeals, there is no real dispute as to the facts established by the evidence. The question is rather as to the inference to be drawn regarding those matters upon which...
P.R. Govindaswami Naicker Vs. C. Javanmull Sowcar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad56; (1938)2MLJ920
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned Additional Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, in C.M.P. No. 1488 of 1938, dated the 12th May, 1938, in which he refused to issue a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 815 of 1938 prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from exercising his power of selling out of Court three houses situated in the City of Madras. The three houses together with an oil engine, it is alleged, had been mortgaged in the first instance to the second defendant in 1934. The first defendant is a subsequent mortgagee whose deed was executed by the plaintiff on 28th January, 1935. It is not disputed that the deed gives first defendant power of sale without the intervention of Court and therefore under Section 69(i)(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, the first defendant has power to sell the mortgage property out of Court. The plaintiff's case is that he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »